Posted on 12/17/2006 6:50:17 AM PST by rellimpank
In a largely symbolic move reflecting frustration with the unwillingness of the federal government to enforce its own immigration laws, the Pahrump Town Board on Nov. 14 adopted an ordinance that bans the flying of foreign flags by themselves (as opposed to "below the Stars and Stripes," presumably) and declaring English the town's official language.
They also threw in "denying town benefits" to illegal aliens. No one seems sure what benefits those would be.
New Nye County Sheriff Tony DeMeo immediately called the measure unconstitutional and said he wouldn't enforce it.
In fact, flag-flying and speaking Spanish are pretty well protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, the results of official bilingualism in Canada and Belgium range from the silly to the disruptive, and Americans have every right to try and nip in the bud this business of printing duplicate official documents -- even election ballots -- for the convenience of non-assimilating Hispanics
(Excerpt) Read more at reviewjournal.com ...
Sheriff Dhimmi hasn't got the memo yet:WE are sick and tired of foreign nationals coming here, demanding benefits and demanding that we change our country to fit thier corrupt culture.
"New" Sheriff DeMeo needs to be made "former" Sheriff DeMeo by this time next week if he refuses to enforce a law duly enacted by his county's elected officials.
It's his place to enforce the law as it stands now, not to decide it's constitutionality. It's called "separation of powers", and that's why we have judges and justices and not just law makers and law enforcers.
Voters in AZ gave a big thumbs up to English Only - it rests now with the governor and the AZ attorney general. They can raise the tax on cigarettes over night but English Only will take years...............
The problem with the Sheriff's point of view concerning "English Only" is that it can easily ( and should be ) applied merely to people seeking city services! If you want to get a permit - No Habla Espanol! If you want city benefits - No Habla Espanol.
Now does that sound mean - Not to me. Why should ballots, official documents, etc. be in anything other than English in this country. I've never understood that concept and never will.
That is the hardest thing to get a cop to understand. It seem most think there is an exception for themselves.
ping
Sorry Tony, what is or is not unconstitutional is not your call. IMHO: Until it's decided by proper JUDICIAL AUTHORTY your job is to enforce the law. Willfully refusing to do that is grounds for your immediate removal as the Sheriff for malfeasance in office, disobedience, and insubordination.
Wow!!
You completely misunderstand how our system of checks and balances works. All three branches, states and individuals have a role to play in determining what's constitutional and what's not. I suggest you read the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions written by Jefferson and Madison to learn the way this country is supposed to work.
I disagree with the sheriff here in his interpretation, but I agree completely with his right to make such a determination.
Please click on the link and deport Elvira!!
http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=9202486
Send an illegal alien home for Christmas!
So you're saying that if the legislature passed a law making it legal for one man to own another as property, and another law requiring that if said "property" escaped, the "property" must be returned to his rightful "owner" if recaptured, it would be incumbent upon law enforcement officials to vigorously enforce said law, even if the courts said such a law was valid?
If a Sheriff's sworn duty is to enforce the law to the best of his understanding and ability, and IMHO it is, then yes, I would expect him to do just that.
It isn't his responsibility or his right to interpret the law or to declare it unconstitutional. If he objects to the intent or the results of an inhumane or unfair law so intensely that he can't bring himself to enforce it, he should resign or take temporary leave of absence and let someone else handle his job until a judge rules it either constitutional or unconstitutional. In the imaginary case you created a judge has already ruled the law constitutional, therefore your fictitious Sheriff's only acceptable choices are to either enforce the law or resign.
Ever heard of the Fugitive Slave Law?
I haven't read either of those documents for quite some time, a very long time in fact. But IIRC they were, or at least the KY resolution was, written in objection to the alien and sedition act. I don't remember much of anything in those documents that relates to the duties and rights of a county Sheriff, or to a supposed right of local law enforcement officers to determine the validity of a duly enacted law apart from judicial review. The question of the duties and rights of a county Sheriff don't appear to me to be closely related to the dispute concerning the usurpation of state powers by the federal government, which IIRC was the primary issue addressed by the KY resolution. If the office of county Sheriff fits anywhere in the overall scheme of American government, it seems to me that it would be in the judicial branch. But in that branch the judicial office holds supreme authority, not law enforcement as this Sheriff apparently thinks it does.
If you are as knowledgeable about those resolutions as your nom de plume suggests, you should be able to correct my memory of those documents if I am mistaken, which I may well be. I am not saying that you aren't correct and that I am, but I would like to know your reasons for saying that I don't understand the separation of powers doctrine.
The Executive Branch of government is not a marionette dancing on the strings of th Juciciary and the Legislature.
It appears that Congress countered the SC's ruling by amending the bill so as to to achieve the same effect as before the decision by allowing the force of the bill to be carried out by an agency other than the law enforcement authorities of the state in which the slave was seeking refuge.
Please help me here, did the amended version of the FS bill have the same effect on apprehending runaway slaves that Congress intended the original version to have, or was that version also invalidated by the SC? IIRC that would have been during the time of the Taney court, and he is not exactly known for being in sympathy with the abolitionist cause.
As I recall, under the FSA of 1850, law-enforcement personnel in pursuit of escaped slaves were allowed to deputize private citizens to aid in the pursuit.
I could be wrong.
I don't know of any judicially invalidated law having been reinstated by the other branches, which is why I maintain that the county sheriff in this situation doesn't have the power to invalidate a law duly enacted by the elected local government of his jurisdiction, but a judge does have that power. Of course a sheriff can refuse to enforce a law he or she believes is unconstitutional, and in fact this sheriff refuses to do so. But in a final showdown he is not above the courts, and for that matter the governor of the state can suspend or possibly even remove him from office if he or she believes he is derelict in his duty. I know for a fact that exact thing has happened in FL more than once in my memory, and I imagine that NV has pretty much the same policy regarding a sheriff's duties and powers. That may not conform to the ideals of Jeffersonian-style small government purists, but it is what usually happens where the rubber meets the road in America today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.